Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section Forum

[youpiiz]

this reminds me of the f b thread.

[Hey-O]

I kind of want to see this happen just because of all of the smug on this thread.

Wait whose smug? The petitioners or the anti-petitioners?

[citrustang]

I hope I don't come across as smug. I've tried to be fair, respectful, and objective in offering my position for your consideration. I'm sorry if it has been received differently.

[jarofsoup]

I dont want to be a dick. But I highly doubt that LSAC could have messed up this badly, and furthermore they would later admit to it.

[mst]

People misinterpret things all the time. I know it's upsetting, and I agree that the words used by the test might lead to alternate conclusions. On a more personal note, I would disagree with the level of inherit ambiguity in this question, but if a few people are having the same issue, then I believe it's worth taking up.

That said, I don't know what you are expecting here? To have the question selectively removed from scoring? To reward those who missed it specifically? None of the suggestions that you could possibly ask for that would lead to you getting a higher scaled score are at all practical or possible, and would lead to more chaos than before.

If you are truly under the impression that this question was unfair and contributed negatively to your score in such a way that you will probably be pushed outside of your standard LSAT range, I suggest that you cancel your score and ask for a fee waiver for the next examination in a letter to the LSAC. However, please don't go trudging this around the internet, as I have a strong feeling this will lead others, who simply would not understand the game regardless of clarity, to be given inapplicable reasons to petition LSAC. If you are concerned others would not be aware that they could challenge this potential issue, you shouldn't be. LSAC makes the guidelines for that process pretty clear.

To the guy that is complaining this threw him off for the entire exam, and made him miss additional questions outside of the logic games, all I can comment is that if you allow your emotions to run so wildly in the middle of the exam, perhaps you weren't ready to take this test. I'm sure we can all agree that a large part of life, and law school, entails being able to concentrate on the work at hand. When you break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, a pet dies, you lose a case, you get in a car accident, someone robs you on the way to class, etc... you are still expected to perform at a high level in the work/school environment. This test is a good measure of that ability to some regard. If you felt that you were not currently prepared to demonstrate that ability (and this pertains to the questions you claim were missed after the games section in question), then maybe it's best you cancel your score.

[DaveBear07]

If you think we're wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

I think it is less about worrying and more about laughing.

bk187, why the hate?

I wrote LSAC today because I was one of the ones who read the first two rules and understood them as meaning location without even noticing I had done so. Personally, I do believe I made this mistake because "field" in journalism can mean such a thing. Now, I realized my mistake only after one problem made no sense to me. I looked back up at the rules and realized the intended meaning. I did my best to regroup quickly and hopefully was able to get 3 of the questions right. But not only did I miss 3 of the remaining questions, I was not able to go back and check my work, potentially further damaging my overall performance on the section.

Now, law school application cycles are pretty important. I believe we who mis-understood the term unknowingly have every right to ask LSAC to review the wording and decide if they are ok with its outcome and its level of potential ambiguity, especially in light of the fact that my misunderstanding of the word could potentially cost me financial aid or admssion to certain schools and the fact that it seems to have affected a relativey large number of test takers.

And honestly in my position, I feel really disappionted that my months of hard work and drilling logic games was potentially ruined by an innocent, certainly unintentional, use of an unclear term.

I don't know what they'll do but personally, if this makes it to stage 2 of the review process with the independent reviewers, I don't know how they can keep the game in... unprecedented? yes. wildly significant? yes. but they may have screwed up big time here guys.

And I hope you all can understand where I'm coming from on this. Thanks and hope all of you the best.

[bk1]

It's not hate.

I support your right to petition LSAC in any way you wish. However, that does not mean that LSAC will do anything or that you are right.

I laugh because people think that there are two valid interpretations of the rules in this question (there aren't) and that LSAC will do something (they won't).

[Philipsssssss]

People misinterpret things all the time. I know it's upsetting, and I agree that the words used by the test might lead to alternate conclusions. On a more personal note, I would disagree with the level of inherit ambiguity in this question, but if a few people are having the same issue, then I believe it's worth taking up.

That said, I don't know what you are expecting here? To have the question selectively removed from scoring? To reward those who missed it specifically? None of the suggestions that you could possibly ask for that would lead to you getting a higher scaled score are at all practical or possible, and would lead to more chaos than before.

If you are truly under the impression that this question was unfair and contributed negatively to your score in such a way that you will probably be pushed outside of your standard LSAT range, I suggest that you cancel your score and ask for a fee waiver for the next examination in a letter to the LSAC. However, please don't go trudging this around the internet, as I have a strong feeling this will lead others, who simply would not understand the game regardless of clarity, to be given inapplicable reasons to petition LSAC. If you are concerned others would not be aware that they could challenge this potential issue, you shouldn't be. LSAC makes the guidelines for that process pretty clear.

To the guy that is complaining this threw him off for the entire exam, and made him miss additional questions outside of the logic games, all I can comment is that if you allow your emotions to run so wildly in the middle of the exam, perhaps you weren't ready to take this test. I'm sure we can all agree that a large part of life, and law school, entails being able to concentrate on the work at hand. When you break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, a pet dies, you lose a case, you get in a car accident, someone robs you on the way to class, etc... you are still expected to perform at a high level in the work/school environment. This test is a good measure of that ability to some regard. If you felt that you were not currently prepared to demonstrate that ability (and this pertains to the questions you claim were missed after the games section in question), then maybe it's best you cancel your score.

Well, you are somewhat right. I shouldn't have (I assume you referred to my post) let this effect me. However, RC being my not 'the strongest' section, i missed the 4th passage, and after that happened...the last LR was just a mess. I think i made a mistake letting the LG take over me, but missing 2 games, which never happened to me, sucks. I am not the emotional sort, but when you are taking a test, which doesn't test knowledge, but pure ability to perform under timed conditions with logic and reading, having the strongest section fail you may in fact cause you to realize that you will have to cancel anyway. I felt ready, i came with a good mood, did the first 2 games fine, but then, baam'. Plus the thing is i drew out the possibilities on paper today, and i realized that i have RUSHED in that 4th game, and misread the rule, although i do agree that it was stated in a bit of an ambiguous fashion.

I agree that it is not right to let 1 section effect the entire test. But when a 160+ differ from a 150 by something like this, i do no see a reason not to get frustrated, as devastating it is.

[jarofsoup]

What could happen as a result of this is that they just write the Qs differently. I heard that after Dinhos they stopped using the letter U, L, I and V as variables in the same game because it is unnecessary confusion. (this is according to Kaplan, so it could be a crock of crap)

[citrustang]

That said, I don't know what you are expecting here? To have the question selectively removed from scoring? To reward those who missed it specifically? None of the suggestions that you could possibly ask for that would lead to you getting a higher scaled score are at all practical or possible, and would lead to more chaos than before.

If you are truly under the impression that this question was unfair and contributed negatively to your score in such a way that you will probably be pushed outside of your standard LSAT range, I suggest that you cancel your score and ask for a fee waiver for the next examination in a letter to the LSAC. However, please don't go trudging this around the internet, as I have a strong feeling this will lead others, who simply would not understand the game regardless of clarity, to be given inapplicable reasons to petition LSAC. If you are concerned others would not be aware that they could challenge this potential issue, you shouldn't be. LSAC makes the guidelines for that process pretty clear.

I stated this earlier in the thread, but I'll repeat it here to demonstrate consistency. I don't have a personal axe to grind here. I think I did fine on the test. The issue is not how a review of this LG will affect me personally (positively or negatively), the issue is whether or not every tester had a fair chance of tackling the game, free of incorrect interpretations that were reasonably warranted by ambiguous language.

[alphagamma]

What could happen as a result of this is that they just write the Qs differently. I heard that after Dinhos they stopped using the letter U, L, I and V as variables in the same game because it is unnecessary confusion. (this is according to Kaplan, so it could be a crock of crap)

I always hated I's as variables. I always had to take time to make them look different from my 1's.

[DaveBear07]

It's not hate.

I support your right to petition LSAC in any way you wish. However, that does not mean that LSAC will do anything or that you are right.

I laugh because people think that there are two valid interpretations of the rules in this question (there aren't) and that LSAC will do something (they won't).

Not any way intending to be argumentative, but I don't even think we need to argue that there are two valid interpretations of the rules. The basis for my objection is the fact the term was ambigious enough upon first reading to cost me 5 or 6 minutes and 3 to 4 points on my score. LSAC will need to decide if it is acceptable to have this level of ambiguity in a Logic Game, given its significant consequences for people like myself and for others.

Although I guess they'd first need to decide if the term is indeed reasonably ambigious enough to warrant ground of objections. I believe it is because of its context, which is what I'm sure led me to interpret it the way I did without intentionally doing so.

Furthermore, LSAC is an organization that takes steps to ensure its integrity. They've taken out questions before. Their process for review includes independent reviewers at Stage 2. So I don't think it is fruitless to challenge the wording. Personally, and I don't want to start an argument, but I think the easiest and most fair thing to do would be to admit they screwed up (if they deem that they did) and to throw the game out. It's just like throwing a LR question out, it benefits some and hurts others, but on a larger scale. But to me it is more fair to throw the game out for everyone, than to make it count for those that its ambiguity cost precious points from their score.

[cinefile 17]

Just curious...bc I HIGHLY doubt this would ever happen, but if they did (hypothetically) decide to remove the game from scoring, what would happen to those of us who did really well on the games and are depending on the games to make up for other portions of the test that we are more worried about (like a RC section)? Our scores would just be screwed?

[DaveBear07]

Maybe they could make the other 3 games count for the same number of points as 4? That's got to be mathmatically possible right?

[user101]

Maybe they could make the other 3 games count for the same number of points as 4? That's got to be mathmatically possible right?

I wrote a thread about this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=119845

Weighing the other questions in AR wouldn't be an ideal solution either, since it would increase the variance of each of the 17 remaining questions.

[Hey-O]

I laugh because people think that there are two valid interpretations of the rules in this question (there aren't).

I'm wondering what your reasoning is. I've read all your posts and it just isn't clear to me.

If you use the word field to mean place then the questions are unanswerable, that doesn't mean that the word doesn't have those two meanings, especially in journalism.

Are you arguing that the ambiguity doesn't matter because the game doesn't work with the different implication or that there is no ambiguity?

[citrustang]

DaveBear07, I appreciate the support. Thanks for chiming in. That said, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It has not been established that we have a case yet, so any talk of redress seems premature at this point. Our role is to submit challenges, the LSAC will decide if our argument is valid, and if so, they will determine the right course of action.

In other words, let's not draw unnecessary ire due to our speculations regarding a successful challenge.

[DaveBear07]

Ya, I agree. If I scored out of my good PT range I'll be super pissed though.

[D. H2Oman]

Maybe they could make the other 3 games count for the same number of points as 4? That's got to be mathmatically possible right?

You guys are beyond delusional.

[citrustang]

Welcome back.

[Xnegd]

A singular question is basically a point (at least in the upper echelon), and five+ questions will absolutely determine whether or not we get into a good school or not.

At most, I expect my/our challenge of the game to persuade the LSAC to not make another game have variables as ambiguous as this one in the future. It would have been so easy to state: "occupation," so I strongly assume they meant for there to be ambiguity in the term they used. The fact that their guidelines state they work against ambiguous terms, I think make our contention quite valid. Regardless, should we persuade them I'll be happen with that alone. After all the LSAT is supposed to be about intelligence, not about word-play and definitions. Though some might say that seeing the term as they meant it is dependent upon intelligence, but I'd disagree. My understanding of it was based on how the term is question is used in my cultural knowledge and experiences, and I never would have understood it to mean otherwise, and having never had any trouble with games in the past with quite a bit of experience and studying done, I'd consider myself quite adapt at them.

Retaking the test for me will be difficult, because they don't offer the test where I live (Dublin, Ireland) I'll have to fly to London or New Zealand; so even if they refund it I'm out lots of money to retake. So ideally, I just hope that they don't do this again in October.

[Hey-O]

A singular question is basically a point (at least in the upper echelon), and five+ questions will absolutely determine whether or not we get into a good school or not.

At most, I expect my/our challenge of the game to persuade the LSAC to not make another game have variables as ambiguous as this one in the future. It would have been so easy to state: "occupation," so I strongly assume they meant for there to be ambiguity in the term they used. The fact that their guidelines state they work against ambiguous terms, I think make our contention quite valid. Regardless, should we persuade them I'll be happen with that alone. After all the LSAT is supposed to be about intelligence, not about word-play and definitions. Though some might say that seeing the term as they meant it is dependent upon intelligence, but I'd disagree. My understanding of it was based on how the term is question is used in my cultural knowledge and experiences, and I never would have understood it to mean otherwise, and having never had any trouble with games in the past with quite a bit of experience and studying done, I'd consider myself quite adapt at them.

Retaking the test for me will be difficult, because they don't offer the test where I live (Dublin, Ireland) I'll have to fly to London or New Zealand; so even if they refund it I'm out lots of money to retake. So ideally, I just hope that they don't do this again in October.

Totally off-topic: New Zealand? Wow! That is really far away from Ireland. Why would you take it so far away?

[abcd12]

i dont know much about LSAC, but i agree that discarding the game or even questions in it seems unlikely.. is there any possibility that if they recognize an ambiguity, they would adjust the curve a point or two accordingly? a -12 instead of a -10 would be nice.

[SarahBeth]

8 June 2010

Dear LSAC Representative,

I am writing in regard to an ongoing debate about the 4th game in the June 2010 Logic Games (Analytical Reasoning) section.

It has come to my attention that a group of test takers feel there was an injustice in this game and that “_____” was a word open to interpretation. I am writing on behalf of all those test takers with an elementary-level grasp of the English language in hopes that you remain resolved in not making accommodations for a potentially vocal minority, thus altering the curve placement for the rest of us.

Access to law school seems to be no longer restricted by LSAT performance. Due to factors outside of LSAC's control, such as an ABA accreditation process only slightly more selective than an ACORN voter registration drive, individuals obviously not qualified to give legal counsel are somehow still finding their way to Juris Doctorates and even bar passage. No matter how many large blocks and trip wires we put in front of these legal Helen Kellers, they remain resolute that a future of affairs with breast-augmented paralegals and career highways ending in SCOTUS nominations are not only earned them, but necessarily expected.

It is a tricky thing, the English language. Words can have multiple denotations and various connotations. The inability of over caffeinated virgins to correctly ascertain skin-deep, basic instructions is troubling to those such as me who fear that the legal market will never fully recover. Sarah Palin and responsibility. Miss Teen South Carolina and intelligence. Thomas M Cooley Law students and jurisprudence. Like a brothel and crabs, it seems clear to most of us that some things should not be mixed together for the betterment of society. I hope that if we can demand nothing else from our aspiring legal scholars, we require that they can color within the lines, breath through their nose and comprehend words.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Sincerely,

Rocketman11

For the record Rocketman11, Helen Keller graduated cum laude from Radcliffe. Just because she was Deaf-blind does not mean she was incapable. Also, just because people know more than the common definition and recognize an ambiguity does not make them stupid or incapable of being a lawyer. I am personally offended about your remarks. Are you going to next compare these people to a different minority group because you find them less capable?

[budafied]

ITT: People trying to rationalize a misinterpretation of their own making and petitioning LSAC to agree with this rationalization rather than owning up to the fact that they are wrong.

+1